COUNCIL MEETING
CITY OF BERKELEY LAKE
4040 BERKELEY LAKE ROAD
BERKELEY LAKE, GEORGIA 30096
Full Minutes for January 19, 2006

Those in attendance for the Council Meeting were as follows:
Mayor: Lois Salter
Council Members:
Walter Anderson, Bernie Cohen, Debbie Guthrie, Tom Kitchens and George Sipe
City Clerk- Jackie Wall
City Attorney- Dick Carothers
Citizens Present- 8
               
CALL TO ORDER
Salter opened the meeting at 7:40pm at 4043 South Berkeley Lake Road.

MINUTES
Guthrie motioned that the minutes of the meeting of January 5, 2006 be accepted. Kitchens seconded the motion.  All were in favor of the motion. The motion passed.

REPORTS
Salter asked Council to respond to the Communications Committee End of Year addendum. She complimented the committee on the choice of using open source software as the additional features had been free so far. There was discussion about adding council email addresses to the web site, and it was agreed that they should be added through a page link. There was discussion about council adding their comments to reports posted on the web site to enable residents to see their discussion about reports posted. It was agreed it would be a good idea. Council agreed for the clerk to update the directory in the Spring, as it had been a year and half since the last version. Council also agreed to continue to add the podcast of the council meeting to the website until the disk space was full as Sipe suggested.

Salter said that a SPLOST report had been added to the financial reports. A motion on the financial reports for December 2005 was withdrawn until the next meeting so Council could review the updated versions.

Salter called attention to the new Committee tasks for 2006. Committee_Tasks_06.doc

Salter said she had submitted a School report as requested. She said she had also noted some other things relevant to citizens, which had come from County Commissioner Bert Nasuti. Nasuti had said that there would be a new police precinct opening much closer to us in the Peachtree Corners area. The County was also adding a Dog park at Pinckneyville. The ground breaking for the new Aquatic center would start in about two months, it would be a major amenity to the area.  Guthrie and Kitchens thanked Salter for taking the time to put the report together. Salter said she had sent a courtesy copy of the report to the Principal of Berkeley Lake Elementary School who had noted that there would be 1178 not 1200 students attending the school next year. She also noted a comment made by Nasuti to the report concerning the transient population common to multi families complexes, which she had amended on the web site version of the report. School_report.doc

Salter said that the City had received a report from the new City Engineers. She said it was the result of two meetings. She said that the engineers had been driven all over the City to look at the issues. She said she was impressed with the thoroughness of the report. She said that they had looked at the work recently completed at the culvert next to 396 Lakeshore Drive, but were unable to offer an opinion as they had not seen the work performed, although it seemed the contractor had completed the work as requested. It was noted that the area should be monitored and that the City does have a one-year bond on the work. Council agreed that final payment should be made to them.

 Road_Maintenance_Drainage_Project_Inspection_Issues_1-18-06.pdf

Salter had said that there had been citizen complaints about the paving project particularly regarding the varying thickness of the paving in different areas. She described the recommendations made by the engineers to ask the paving company to fix the driveway transitions and gutter drop off in River Mansions. 10% of the final payment had been withheld pending the report, and Salter said she agreed with the suggestion that the company should fix the issues although it was suspected that it may cost them more than the balance to so. Carothers said he agreed and noted that paving in Berkeley Field measured at 0.75" was below industry standards. Anderson noted that leveling the driveways could cause a water run off issue causing erosion of the lawn and/or into the road that could be safety concern. There were concerns about the large drop off in some areas on Lakeshore Drive too, which need rebuilding up, and may be expensive. There was discussion about using the same company to address the issue, as they would need supervision and whether to get an estimate to cost the job from the county pavers. It was agreed that Salter would follow up with the engineers about the options. Salter noted that correcting problems from last year would increase the costs for the city engineer, which had not been budgeted for.

Salter asked if Council agreed with the engineers’ recommendations to rebuild the shoulders on Lakeshore Drive and correct the driveway issues in this year’s road paving program, even though it was not in the budget for the year. Council asked for a quote for the work first.

There was discussion regarding acquiring easements for public works projects in the future, and it was agreed to review whether they would be temporary or permanent easements once the details were available.

Salter also noted that the engineers had reviewed the DOT ratings for the city roads. On a scale of 1-100, the roads that had been identified as needing paving in the budget, for example Miramont, had a rating of 89. It had been suggested in the report that roads are not normally paved until they reach a scale of 55. The lowest rating in the city is 75 which is Valley View Lane and it could be paved with LARP funds. Salter asked council to consider what they would like to do in this light. She suggested the Public Works committee may also like to consider this. It was noted that the subdivisions had the expectation that their roads would be paved this year, and a decision would need to be made if this was still was going to be the case. Anderson said that there are specific spots on some of the roads in Miramont that should still be repaired and suggested that there should be discussion with Miramont about the condition of the roads. Guthrie suggested that Salter discuss the issue with all the HOA presidents first and invite the engineer to the meeting. Council was in agreement to pursue the action items on the engineers list. Kitchens noted that Council would like to know what it would cost. Salter reiterated that was why she had brought the list to council.

Citizen Comment: Randy Johnson 296 Lakeshore Drive. Johnson said citizens had heard last year about money that had not been spent in the Public Works budget. He asked if the money that was not spent could be used to fix the projects from last year.

Salter said that that the money not spent was still available. She said she was also aware  that money had been allocated for projects such as re-paving that may not have to be done.

OLD BUSINESS
Building Inspector
Salter said that there were new forms and information regarding building permits and it would shortly also be available on the web site. She said citizens would be able complete them at home if they wished. The fees were also published and it would be cheaper to apply than it had been in the past. She said Council had received an unsolicited thank-you letter from a resident complimenting the city on the new process.

Sipe motioned to reaffirm the Resolution regarding the hiring of Lokey and Associates and the schedule of fees.

 R-22-06_Building_Inspector.pdf

There was discussion as to how the schedule of fees was reached as a citizen had commented that the fees were low. Salter said the fee level was achieved by consulting with other cities, the City Attorney and the Building Inspector.  Salter said the aim was to keep the fees revenue neutral, and if costs exceeded the income the fees would have to be raised, but it was hoped that would not be the case.

Guthrie seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed.

Guthrie motioned to authorize the Mayor to enter in a contract with Lokey and Associates.  Kitchens seconded the motion, and all were in favor. The motion passed.

3- 204  Proposed change to ordinance providing for monthly meetings- Kitchens
 3-204_Council_Meetings.pdf
Kitchens proposed that the ordinance was implemented and would be effective at the beginning of March. Guthrie seconded the motion.

There was discussion about whether the ordinance should be adopted if there was only two weeks between the first and second read. Kitchens said that his intent was that it should be adopted too. Guthrie withdrew her second to the motion as she wanted it only to be on second read and to be adopted at the next meeting.
 
Kitchens restated the motion to put the ordinance on second read and not adopted yet. Guthrie seconded the motion. Anderson, Guthrie and Kitchens were in favor of the motion. Cohen and Sipe were against. The motion passed.

3-701 (b) P and Z term change- Kitchens
Kitchens said he would like to table the discussion regarding P and Z terms until the next council meeting as he had received two emails that day that concerned him and he wanted to review them.

39- 401.2 Boat Houses and Docks 39-401.2_Boat_Houses_and_docks_FINAL.pdf
Salter had said that council had all received a suggested change to the wording from Carothers. Carothers said it should read ‘no greater than 100 sq. ft’.

Sipe motioned to put the ordinance on second read with the changes Carothers suggested but not adopt it. Anderson seconded the motion. All were in favor of the motion and the motion passed.

Greenspace Site Management Plan - Guthrie
Salter said that she had been asked to contact Carol Hassell, (GOLT chairperson) at the last meeting regarding using chemicals to treat Kudzu as Cohen had believed that GOLT would not allow it. She said GOLT would support the use of chemicals for both Kudzu and invasives such as privet, and reiterated that GOLT would not have signed the agreement if using chemicals against invasives had been an issue for the City as Hassell said she  felt it was necessary. It was not listed on the Easement restrictions that chemicals should not be used against invasives although it was noted they should not be used to eradicate other natural wildlife or things that were indigenous to the area

Salter said Cohen was also under the impression that GOLT would not let the City plant trees in the Greenspace on Arbor Day. That was also not the case; they would encourage the planting of trees in there. 

Salter said that Hassell also initiated conversation about having a sound barrier near the greenspace. Hassell said that she would be opposed to it, and she thought GOLT would also not support it, and had asked Salter to pass that on.

Carothers said that all the parcels in the greenspace could be treated as one as all the GOLT easement documents were the same, and all referred to it as one area.
 
Guthrie said she would therefore request that the BLC site management plan treat the area as one parcel instead of separate parcels.
 
Carothers said that different areas of topography could be noted separately on the plan, therefore noting differences and characteristics in the features of the land rather than the parcels themselves. He said both he and the City had the plats and surveys of the area, and suggested that some of the survey pins could still be there.

Guthrie agreed and said her point was that she did not want to spend several thousand dollars having surveys done as the BLC had requested.  Since the area could be treated as one parcel, a survey may not be required or necessary. She noted that Anderson had already found some of the survey pins. Council agreed that Guthrie’s suggestion to treat the area as one parcel for the site management plan would be conveyed to the BLC. Anderson offered to take the message to the BLC at their upcoming meeting.

Anderson described a conservation he had with the owner of one of the parcels adjacent to city property on which the deer stand had been located. The owner reportedly told Anderson that he had not given anyone permission to enter, erect a stand or hunt on the property and gave the city verbal permission to remove the stand. Anderson agreed to get the permission in writing to remove the stand and organize a group of willing citizens to do so. It was noted that the owner could also post a no trespassing sign. There was also further discussion regarding the adjacent properties.

Graffiti Intergovernmental Agreement GRAFFITI-CITIES-AGREEMENT.pdf
Salter said that she had put details regarding the agreement in the Mayors message as requested by council and one person had stated an objection. She said the City already had a separate ordinance requiring property owners to remove graffiti within 48 hours. She said that this agreement was to allow the County, in conjunction with Gwinnett Clean and Beautiful, to use ‘trustee’ inmates to remove graffiti quickly on property that was ‘viewable by the public’. Guthrie reiterated that it would not be to remove graffiti on private residential property. It would be on property ‘viewable by the public’, and that it would mainly refer to the new commercial properties on Peachtree Industrial Blvd (PIB). The City would have to make a request for the County to remove the graffiti, and the City could terminate the agreement at any point. It was an agreement to make the service available should we need to use it. Salter noted that prisoners already pick up trash along PIB.  It would be also be necessary for the property owners to sign a ‘right of entry’ to allow the City to request the service from the county.  Sipe pointed out that it would be in the owner’s best interest to get it cleaned up as soon as possible, but this would give them an optional way of doing it.

Guthrie motioned to approve the City entering into the intergovernmental agreement with the change that the City attorney had made previously to the right of entry which allowed the owner to waive claims against both the County and City. Kitchens seconded the motion and all were in favor. The motion passed.

Comprehensive Plan
Salter said that she and the Clerk had met with county comprehensive planners. The representative was soliciting information from the City in order to bid for task B and C. The County had already provided a quote for task A. Salter said she had also asked the City engineers to bid for each task too, as they already knew so much about the city. She said a decision needs to be made as to whether to use the county planners for Task A by the end of February.

Cohen later said he thought that only the county planner should be considered to complete the comprehensive plan as it needed to be uniform. He said if the county planner was doing it for everyone, they would get it perfectly right. He suggested Salter find out if any of the other cities were going to go with someone else. He said he did not think that they were. He said he felt that it would be good to go with the County planner as they were ‘deeply steeped’ in the county’s plan. Salter said she had talked to other cities, and most of them were going with the County planner for Task A, but most of them would be doing their own Task B and C, as it could be very expensive. The engineers were coming from Baltimore to do it. The county planner had specifically pointed out that to her that they would be ‘very expensive’. She said she would bring both bids to the Council.

Cohen asked who would put the plan together once Task A, B and C were completed. Salter said that it would be whoever was asked to do it. She said it had occurred to her that a committee of ex-officio’s members may be able to put together an outline. She suggested that the members may be the Chair of Public Works, Chair of the Ordinance Committee, the Chair of Planning and Zoning, the City Clerk, the City Engineer, and the Mayor. She said it would then be brought to council.

Cohen said he did not understand where the expense would be incurred by going with the county planner as they would already be here doing the county plan. Salter said that the county planner specifically said, without being pressed to do so, that ‘you know we are going to be very expensive’. She said it did not hurt to get additional bids, and council would participate in that process.

Ethics seminar- Guthrie
Guthrie noted that the March 17th date for Council’s Ethics seminar had been finalized She said that if there were any requests for content customization then to let her know. She said there was a course description on the GMA web site, but she would get a detailed version so Council could decide what else they might like to be included.

NEW BUSINESS
Alcoholic beverages ordinance- Guthrie
Guthrie said the liquor by the drink referendum had been passed, and the development ‘Berkeley Village’ had started. She said that the City currently did not have an ordinance to protect the type of establishment that would be serving liquor. She said she had looked at the City of Lilburn’s ordinance, which was very long, and another reason why she felt that Council should begin looking at it already, so Council would be prepared. She asked if council would consider asking the city attorney to put together some recommendations for such an ordinance based on other cities’ ordinances.  Carothers said that Lilburn was currently changing their ordinance. He then described ways of approaching such an ordinance based on food or seating requirements, and the issues resulting from it. Carothers agreed to come up with a draft version for council’s consideration. Anderson noted that the sooner the City had such an ordinance in place, the sooner the developers of ‘Berkeley Village’ would be able to go ahead and negotiate with potential buyers.

Cohen asked about the meeting that Crescent Development were supposed to be having with the Blue Ridge Owners Association regarding the detention pond. It was noted that the meeting originally planned had been postponed to Friday 20th January.

Use of City attorney’s time- Guthrie
Guthrie said she did not want an ordinance, resolution or formal policy on how Council made use of the city attorney’s time; however, she asked that Council consider the following guidelines: to openly discuss issues the majority of council is interested in the attorney pursuing (such as ordinances and research) which would result in billable time; when emailing pertinent questions to the attorney, to copy mayor, council and the clerk if relevant so everyone is ‘on the same page’; that the attorney would remind council if an individual council member asks a question that would result in more billable time; for council to do preliminary research themselves on ideas that may be proposed to council  whenever feasible and reasonable; and for the Mayor and Clerk to continue to use the attorney as they are already doing now on the day to day administration of the City.
 
There was discussion about issues that had arisen last year. Sipe agreed with the general idea, although he did not think it was a major expense for the city. He felt council should be able to ask questions of the attorney. Guthrie reiterated that council should be aware if the attorney is spending a significant amount of time on a project, and that sometimes it would be a matter of judgment. Sipe agreed that good judgment was essential. Guthrie pointed out that the attorney only had a certain amount of time allocated to the city and he shouldn’t be spending that time and money researching a project that the whole Council didn’t know about, to the detriment of other pending issues. She said her general request was for openness.
 
Carothers said he did not want to be caught in the middle of council requests for advice.
Salter said that no restrictions had been put on council members, but a request had been made to not ask the attorney to spend time pursuing an issue that the council as a whole has not already discussed, reviewed or been interested in pursuing. Council agreed.

City Hall- Salter
Salter said that last year, whilst working late in City Hall, a committee had turned up for a meeting without their council member liaison, but with the key and alarm code for city hall.  She said she was sure that they would not have abused it, but thought it would be safer for it not to have happened in the first place. She asked that Council members did not give their City Hall key or alarm code to anybody.  Council agreed.

Peachtree Corners Sign- Sipe
Sipe asked that the Mayor ask one last time for the County to remove the ‘Welcome to Peachtree Corners’ sign in our city limits on PIB. Salter said two attempts had already been made. It was suggested that we remove the sign ourselves if necessary.

CD Investment- Salter
Salter noted that one CD for $200,000 that had been invested for 6 months was up for renewal on January 23rd. She requested that it be reinvested for the same period of time at the best rate that could be found. Cohen said that he would like to see the CD invested in a different bank than the other two CD’s for safety, even though he knew that they were insured, he felt that if something should happen to the bank, it could take years to get the money back. He agreed to help the clerk find the best deal at another bank, and insure it in the same way.

Cohen motioned to reinvest the $200,000 CD for six months at the best rate available in a different bank to the other CD’s. Sipe seconded the motion, and all were in favor of the motion. The motion passed.

CITIZEN COMMENTS
Randy Johnson, BLHA- stormwater representative. Johnson asked for more information about the Gwinnett County Stormwater Utility that had been in the papers at the end of the previous year. He said Council had still not discussed it. He asked that Council update the public about it.

Salter gave a brief description of her meetings with the Gwinnett Municipal Association Legislative Committee in which the issue had been discussed at length. She described how the Utility (not a tax) would be assessed on every parcel in unincorporated Gwinnett County, including the schools, churches,  and public buildings. The Cities had been invited to join the Utility, however the group had asked the County to answer specific questions (for example, regarding response time) before they considered the proposal and so far, they had not been given any answers. She said that it was possible that other cities had already decided not to join the Utility, and some were considering forming their own. She said no one had yet made a formal decision. She assured everyone that once the questions were answered, or the County was able to clarify the issues, and the cities were in a position to make a decision, then it would be brought to, and discussed at, a Council meeting. She clarified that the cities were being asked to ‘opt in’ to the Utility, and only if Council voted to do that, would residents of Berkeley Lake have to pay the Utility fee. There were many options to explore before any vote would be taken. There was further discussion about the other issues involved in a Stormwater Utility.

Johnson asked if the Public Works Stormwater Policy had been discussed yet.

Salter said that Council, the City Engineer, and Public Works committees were still reviewing it, and there would be discussion once they had all done so.

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, COHEN MOTIONED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:35PM.  KITCHENS SECONDED THE MOTION, AND ALL WERE IN FAVOR. THE MOTION PASSED.

Respectfully submitted by Jackie Wall. Approved by Council on February 2nd, 2006.